S.A. considers its biggest annexation in almost two decades (San Antonio: rental, house)

[yosoyway]

S.A. considers its biggest annexation in almost two decades

Guess it's time to move further out.

S.A. considers its biggest annexation in almost two decades - San Antonio Express-News

[smuboy86]

Interesting, especially the annexation on the Northeast side. The city is finally recognizing that it's better to annex than let areas in the county become slums.

[L210]

Some of these annexations are needed. Bexar County has practically been begging San Antonio to annex the unincorporated part of the northeast side. It is a mess because counties in Texas are limited in the types of laws they can pass such as making it mandatory to have waste service.

[TexasRedneck]

Mixed bag, IMO......many live outside the city limits simply because they WANT a less-encumbered life with fewer oversites by governmental bodies. IIRC, those proposed for annexation aren't allowed to vote whether or not they get annexed - and I think THAT should be a binding vote, one in which the majority of those slated to be directly affected have the final say. If THEY want annexation, then that's fine. If not - the city shouldn't be allowed to proceed. Not everyone wants "big brother" in their business....or pockets.

[texdav]

Yep; mixed bag as always. Hopefully they allow a vote in those areas that is common now days before annexing territory. Its also why more and more such areas decide to incorporate themselves.

[TXStrat]

Good to see that the planned land grab by the city of San Antonio is being met with some resistance in the state legislature. State Senator Donna Campbell recently provided information on bills in both the State House and Senate that would require any proposed annexation affecting more than 200 people to face a vote by those residing in the affected areas. The Senate bill made it out of committee last week. Before 1200 WOAI updated the story on their website, there was some interesting back and forth between Sen. Campbell and a representative of the city involved with the annexation process. The city representative was making the case for the annexation, and Sen. Campbell was effectively dismissing the dubious justification presented. The reasoning used by the city included shielding Camp Bullis from encroachment, zoning, and providing city services. Camp Bullis is already protected from encroachment by a combination of local ordinances (dark skies, etc.), the fact that the current city limits extend up Ralph Fair Rd. to a point even with the northern boundary of the Installation, and the use of Army Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) parcels. If shielding Camp Bullis from encroachment were such an issue for the city, why would they have agreed to creating Non-Annexation Agreement Areas on the east side of Camp Bullis from Blanco to HWY 281? Zoning is not a concern, and the city cannot maintain the infrastructure within the current boundaries (See the $9M cut to road maintenance), so why in the world would they increase the area to be maintained? It is nothing short of a land grab to increase property tax revenue. Why else would the city place particular emphasis on the NW side parcel ahead of the other parcels with much higher populations and higher population density, and closer proximity to the existing city limits?

[KM1174]

maybe we cat rid of alamo heights, terrell hills and all those silly cities within cities now.

probably one of THE most stupid ideas ever.

[KM1174]

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

Mixed bag, IMO......many live outside the city limits simply because they WANT a less-encumbered life with fewer oversites by governmental bodies. IIRC, those proposed for annexation aren't allowed to vote whether or not they get annexed - and I think THAT should be a binding vote, one in which the majority of those slated to be directly affected have the final say. If THEY want annexation, then that's fine. If not - the city shouldn't be allowed to proceed. Not everyone wants "big brother" in their business....or pockets.

LOL no. nope nope and nope.

you get no say. so what, you want your city small. doesnt work that way hoss. the greater good > your desire for a small town.

you will get over it though (the people being annexed that cant vote.. for a reason..)

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by KM1174

LOL no. nope nope and nope.

you get no say. so what, you want your city small. doesnt work that way hoss. the greater good > your desire for a small town.

you will get over it though (the people being annexed that cant vote.. for a reason..)

Annexation without voting first doesn't seem like "the greater good'. If your budget rental duplex in '09 gets annexed and you have no say, are you ok with that?

[L210]

Originally Posted by TXStrat

It is nothing short of a land grab to increase property tax revenue. Why else would the city place particular emphasis on the NW side parcel ahead of the other parcels with much higher populations and higher population density, and closer proximity to the existing city limits?

Because those are the areas Bexar County is saying that they will have difficulty serving as they grow. Bexar County is pushing for these areas to be annexed specifically because they have high population densities. If the state legislature doesn't want cities to make "land grabs," then they should give urban counties more power to pass the types of ordinances only cities are allowed to have.